Swamp draining in progress...

http://x.com/nicksortor/status/1904607138900828184
President Trump just ordered ALL FBI FILES in the “Crossfire Hurricane” (aka Russia hoax) be DECLASSIFIED
Adam Schiff is INCREDIBLY terrified right now.
Obama spied on Trump’s campaign, and now it’s ALL about to be exposed!

http://x.com/nicksortor/status/1904975353254158725
Majorie Taylor Greene just DEMOLISHED a foreign fake news reporter
“We don’t give a CRAP about your opinion or your reporting.
Why don’t you go back to your own country where you have a MAJOR migrant problem?”

http://x.com/nicksortor/status/1889540504687194375
I asked Elizabeth Warren HOW she achieved a $12M net worth on a $200K salary, prompting a reply from Elon inquiring as well
TODAY: @ElonMusk announces in the Oval Office DOGE will be investigating public officials with high net worths and low pay
Our government FINALLY listens to US!

.

Dear John Daysh,

.

I recall Trump saying at some point, probably during his election campaign, that he would respect the rule of law.

But he also posted the details of his "Agenda 47" on his website on 13 April 2023 :

« There is no more dire threat to the American Way of Life than the corruption and weaponization of our Justice System—and it’s happening all around us. If we cannot restore the fair and impartial rule of law, we will not be a free country.

As President, it will be my personal mission to restore the scales of justice in America. We will have fairness and equality under the law.

To that end, I will appoint U.S. Attorneys who will be the polar opposite of the District Attorneys that are being appointed throughout the United States. Very unfair to our population. Very unfair to our country.

They will be the 100 most ferocious legal warriors against crime and Communist corruption this country has ever seen.

As we completely overhaul the federal Department of Justice and FBI, we will also launch sweeping civil rights investigations into Marxist local District Attorneys. And that’s what we have—they are Marxist in many cases …I will also order the Department of Justice to establish a task force on protecting the right to self-defence, which is under siege nationwide …

We have to confront this radicalized law in schools. …

We have to reform the far-left Bar Associations and stop the purge of Conservative lawyers from major law firms. I will do whatever it takes to save our legal system—among the greatest achievements of Western Civilization—from the Marxist barbarians who seek to destroy it. And we will do that, we will save it. »
.

I guess the rule of law Trump said he would respect was not the existing rule, but the one he would put in place when he became president.

His frenzy of issuing executive orders is probably just a prelude to the full implementation of his Agenda 47.
.

http://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47/agenda47-firing-the-radical-marxist-prosecutors-destroying-america

.

"“Saying “well, other presidents have done similar things” doesn’t negate the critique…”"

Oh so that's you ADDRESSING the FDR issue? Oh well, if you think so. But seems rather pathetic to me.

"No recent president "

Oh now you've back-tracked to just talking about RECENT presidents. Well that's at least a veiled admission that you were wrong to say only Trump had done it.

But in the end it looks like your entire whine isn't that Trump is in dispute with the judicial branch, just that he says it in a robust way that your delicate sensibilities find challenging. Where's that fainting couch.

"And as for loyalty, thanks for confirming that Trump does demand it from public servants."

As does every President. Its how the system works although that seems to have passed you by. The public service exists as part of the Executive Branch of which the President is the elected leader. They owe loyalty to the head of that branch who was elected by the full body of the US citizenry to be that head.

"Civil servants and legal officials owe loyalty to the Constitution"

You completely misunderstand the US system and democracy in general for that matter. Its not up to the public service to interpret the constitution and determine what they can and can't do. That's the function of the judiciary. The job of the public service is to execute the orders of the Executive branch head and his delegates. If its unconstitutional then the judiciary is tasked with stopping it.

But that doesn't mean that the judiciary is beyond critique and pretty much every president since Washington has done so. If only you knew.

mhaze,

Yes, that was me addressing the FDR example, by engaging the logic behind using historical precedent to excuse Trump’s conduct. You’re welcome to disagree with the argument, but pretending it wasn’t addressed just makes you look like you Ctrl+F’d your way past it again.

And no, saying “recent presidents” isn’t backtracking - it’s being realistic. What a president did 100 years ago isn’t the yardstick we use to judge whether something’s acceptable today. Context matters, and democratic expectations evolve. If you have to go back to 19th and early 20th-century examples to defend Trump’s behavior now, that says more about the weakness of your argument than mine.

As for loyalty: yes, public servants execute the lawful orders of the Executive. But they swear an oath to the Constitution, not the president as a person. That’s a crucial distinction. Expecting loyalty to the office is normal. Expecting personal loyalty, and treating disloyalty as betrayal of the man, is a step toward authoritarianism.

And yes - the judiciary can and should be critiqued. But there’s a difference between policy disagreement and treating judges as enemies of the state whenever they rule against you. That’s the pattern we’re talking about. If you “only knew,” you'd see the difference.

Back you go.

Thanks, Banjo.

That quote is chilling - not just because of what it says, but because of how easily it slips into authoritarian logic under the banner of “justice.”

What strikes me is how Trump positions existing legal institutions (prosecutors, judges, bar associations, the lot) not just as flawed, but as enemies of the people - “Marxist,” “radicalized,” “barbarians.” And the solution? Replace them with “ferocious legal warriors” loyal to him. That’s not reform. That’s a purge.

It matches exactly what we’ve been talking about: Trump doesn’t treat legal institutions as independent bodies. He treats them as either useful or hostile - depending on whether they align with him. And “restoring” the rule of law, in this framing, means stripping it of its independence and replacing it with personal loyalty and ideological conformity.

Respect for the rule of law doesn’t mean reshaping it to fit your enemies list. It means being constrained by it - even when it doesn’t go your way. Agenda 47 is proof that Trump has no intention of doing that.

"And no, saying “recent presidents” isn’t backtracking - it’s being realistic. What a president did 100 years ago isn’t the yardstick we use to judge whether something’s acceptable today. "

Again, there's that display of lack of understanding of how the US system works. The contest between the Executive and the judiciary is as old as the US itself. Since the system hasn't changed, the conflict hasn't changed. The only thing that's changed is that Trump doesn't use what those of delicate sensibilities would call polite language. Where's that fainting couch?

You keep saying that Trump demands personal loyalty from the public service (and we all know that in your mind you just saying it makes it true) but you haven't provided any evidence of that. But who needs evidence when in overblown TDS mode?